Can photography or film, according to Benjamin, have its own new type of aura, a uniqueness which allows for reproduction?
This author, Silliman, suggests they cannot, because photography as art is predicated on the model of painting.
But why this means the way an aura appears cannot change, is left, it seems, fairly unelaborated. There is mention of photographic practices always involving both form and content. Is that why: there cannot be a wholesale revolution?
The inevitable penetration of one dimension into the other prohibits photography, as it does any art based on the possibility of reference (i.e. the coexistence of form and content) from resurrecting a true aura [the new sentence p53]
While the tenor of Silliman's arguments suggests that he implies Benjamin agrees, that it cannot, as well as the selections from The Work of Art Silliman quotes from, this is only ever explicitly stated in ambiguous terms.
[Benjamin] does not argue... that a new aura comes into existence, that of a copy as a formal entity, as the object itself. This position, although not explicitly developed in the work of art is consistent with benjamin's stance... [etc., p 48]